earlier this year it was announced that for the first time the number of homes having only a cell phone and no land line service now exceeds the number of homes having only a land line and no cellular service. at the end of 2008, there were approximately 270 million wireless subscribers in the nation include canning an estimated 40 million active users of mobile internet services. daily, new attractive and useful applications are added to wireless services, and data rates continue to increase as consumers require faster access to mobile communications. as more and more americans use data-intensive smart phones and as services like mobile video emerge, the demand for spectrum to support these applications and devices will continue to grow dramatically. ..

to undertake a comprehensive survey of the nation's spectrum and develop in inventory of age spectrum band in the u.s. table of frequency allocations between 225 mhz end 10 gigahertz. the inventory would include the

identity of both federal and nonfederal users of spectrum and the types of services they offer at each spectrum band as well as the amount of use in each band on a geographic basis. when the inventory is completed the ntia and the fcc would create a web sites in order to make the information gleaned from the inventory available to the public. they would report the results of the inventory to the congress and that report would include a description of information that could not be made publicly available for national-security reasons. it would also include a recommendation of which if any at the least utilize it blocks of spectrum should be reallocated for commercial uses. the creation of the inventory is an essential step in making available more spectrum for commercial and wireless services

and leading the extraordinary the spectrum demands that our nation will soon face. i've also showing how our colleagues, jay insulate, and fran kaplan, in an three improve an ask, this measure would address an urgent need which was brought to light after the fcc auction and the advanced wireless spectrum, the aide ws spectrum in 2006. while that was auctioned at more than three years ago. the winners of the commercial licenses still do not have full access to the spectrum because it is not been fully cleared by the government users. the bill that we have jointly introduced would hasten the process of clearing federal users from spectrum that the government has reallocated for commercial purposes. it would require the ntia to publish the transition plan of each federal entity to be

relocated after a spectrum auction and it would clarify and the steps that federal spectrum users must take. in order to receive payments for their relocation cost from the spectrum relocation fonda. including a requirement that the spectrum fully be reallocated and vacated him by the federal users within one year. my goal is two have both the inventory legislation and the bills speeding the reallocation of previously auction government spectrum through the committee and through the house at the earliest possible time. i want to thank our witnesses for joining us this morning, we look for to your testimony in your views on the future demand for wireless spectrum and the ways in which we can take constructive steps in order to meet those challenges. that concludes my opening statement, i am pleased not to recognize the ranking republican member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from florida,

mr. stern's. >> thank you and good morning mr. chairman, you mentioned both these bills and talk about what they do. so we are very pleased to have this hearing. i'm a co-sponsor of both of these bills, an original co-sponsor. is clear the u.s. will lead to additional spectrum to meet the growing demand for wireless broadband. in fact, we may be victims of our own success here. the u.s. currently leads the world and wireless, wireless providers have used it to provide u.s. consumers with innovative voice and data services, the number of mobile voice customers in the u.s. has surpassed the number of wireline customers. and the number of mobile broadband customers has increased exponentially over the past several years. as customers increasing the amount of time they spend on their mobile devices talking, you mailing and surfing the internet silicides become constrain where capacity. as a result providers need more

spectrum, especially in the two increase the speed in mobile broadband services. we're facing in the words of the fcc chairman a. linen spectrum crisis, for example, a voice call requires approximately 10,000 bits per second while uploading in downloading video downloading, video requires millions of bits per second. countries will lead to 1.3 or 1.000300 thousand baghdad -- megahertz of spectrum dedicated for commercial use by 2013 when then communications union. yet the u.s. currently has only 500 mhz allocated in only 50 mhz in the auction pipeline. so in order to increase the amount of spectrum available for commercial mobile services, the administration and the fcc need to inventory the current uses of spectrum fans. especially those below three

gigahertz that are ideal for mobile uses. the bottom line is that we need to know who uses which spectrum fans and the purposes for which they use such bans. once we have the answers to these questions the government is to decide whether to reallocate spectrum for commercial mobile users. if the government is requiring existing spectrum users to vacate reallocated bands, the government needs to establish meaningful process for reallocating incumbent users. in the process needs to begin sooner rather than later. inventory, reallocation and reallocation of a time and commercial mobile demand for spectrum is increasing as i mentioned exponentially. furthermore one way to make more spectrum available for commercial purposes is to use government spectrum more efficiently and simply reallocated the spectrum saint. that was the idea behind the commercial spectrum enhancement act which was enacted in 2004.

the laws designed to provide funding for the upgrading resources of geren agencies of clearing additional spectrum for commercial use. while the csc a government frequency identified for reallocation of options to licensing and the proceeds are used to improve relocating its agencies wireless facilities. pursuant to this cnca and the fcc held in the advanced wireless service one option in 2006. of the 13.7 billion raised by the eight -- aws auction approximately 1 billion has been spent to reallocate the wireless operations of 12 federal agencies. the reallocation procedures outlined in the csea who worked as some problems are they paid 4 billion to build a three jeanette work. the department of defense and

the drug enforcement agencies are behind a scheduling and clearing some of the spectrum. however, because of unforeseen costs and complexities in their moves which have been, touted by the confidential nature of some of the agency's activities problems like these have prevented the bidders from fully realizing the benefits of their investments in the time frames originally promised and may discourage participation in future reallocation auctions. h.r. 3019 will make the process more efficient. the goal is two better coordinate reallocation so that prospective commercial bidders have increased provenance to bid on the cleared spectrum. this not only helps commercial bidders but also the reallocating agencies since they will have increased revenue from the auction and a better plan transition. thank you mr. chairman for holding this hearing and i look forward to hearing from the witnesses. >> thank you very much, the chairman of the full committee from california, mr. waxman is

recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, i want to thank you for holding the support a legislative hearing on two bills that if adopted will create incentives for efficient specialization and enhance our ability to develop toward looking spectrum policies. ongoing developments in wireless broadband technology along with increased consumer demand have raised questions about the efficiency of it for a spectrum allocations for wireless communications services. the some experts estimate that the wireless industry in the u.s. needs additional hundred 50 megahertz of spectrum and to simply keep up with the explosion in wireless data usage and to remain competitive with other nations. before we can start identifying bands of special that might be made available for these new services, however, we need to understand how existing spectrum is allocated annualized in

simple terms we need better information about spectrum usage by federal and on federal entities. accordingly in july of this year a bipartisan group of 18 energy and commerce committee members introduced h.r. 3125, the radio spectrum inventory act, this legislation represents a critical first up in developing a forward-looking spectrum policy. h.r. 3125 is simply about making spectrum use an allocation transparent. it would direct the national telecommunications information administration and the federal communications commission to develop a publicly available inventory of users and usage in the most valuable spectrum bands. the bill also directs the agencies to examine whether there is underutilized spectrum that might be reallocated for more efficient uses.

of course, any comprehensive look at spectrum must be sensitive to military uses and the need to protect information about such uses. the bill therefore establishes a procedure by which information pertaining to national security will continue to be safeguarded. the committee will continue to work with the department of defense to make sure that we are sensitive to any concerns regarding our national defense. i would also like to express my general support for a truck 39 teen spectrum relocation improvement act of 2009, i commend representatives inslee and upland for introducing this thoughtful legislation to improve with the prospective relocation process. by increasing and the flow of information and resources as well as enhancing transparency. thank you etkin mr. chairman for holding this hearing. i look for to working with you as we move these important bill soren. >> thank you very much, chairman

waxman. the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you end i appreciate hearing. i would say that we need to be working on the block, d block. if we can't get the deed box right out in the heck never going to do other allegations of other spectrums and i focus is as everyone knows someone being involved with the caucuses emergency services and communications. and hopefully my colleague will show and jane harman and we will say shame on us if we have a next disaster and we're not ready to communicate effectively. shame on us if we have another 9/11. shame on us and we have another katrina and we have it sheriff department's not talking to firefighters, we have firefighters not talking to the national guard and. so i appreciate this focus and

we all understand the importance of having an inventory. but if we can get the d -- d block right in a timely manner who are we kidding ourselves? so i would hope mr. chairman and the full committee chairman that we would really work on the parameters to push for a per. proper auction in which we get all the benefits and bring in additional revenue by develop the revenue stream which will allow us to provide grants and money to our first line responders to get to this one important aspect of our homeland security issues and debates in line and i yield the balance of my time. >> thank you mr. shimkus. the chairman emeritus of the liturgy and commerce committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. dingell is recognized for five is. >> thank you mr. chairman. and thank you for attending today's hearing on h.r. 3125.

three of spectrum inventory act. in h.r. 3019, the special relocation improvement act of 2009. had these two bills of which i'm original cosponsor will aid the federal administration allocations by german commodity of increasing importance especially given recent advances in mobile broadband services. i call -- i'm concerned about the allocation, about the future and also about what we have done so far and whether it has contributed to the proper use of the spectrum for the future and for all our people. these two pieces of legislation is are complementary to the federal communications commission the duty to present to the congress and national broadband plan as mandated under the american investment and recovery act. to be certain the success of the development of such a plan and implementation of recommendations will be

facilitated in no means agree by a clearer and better understanding of the spectrum available for use and better and more efficient process by which to allocated for commercial use. this i believe will be accomplished in large part by enactment of the bills pending, the committee's consideration today. with this in mind i welcome our witnesses and look for to hearing their views on the legislation before us. in particular i hope they will engage in a frank discussion when about the relationship between h.r. 3125, har3019, and proposals currently circulating in the fcc to reallocate spectrum from all over the air and television broadcasters to mobile communications providers as a part of the national broadband plan. thank you for your courtesy, mr. chairman, and i commend you for this hearing and the foresight to were showing with that. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you chairman dingell.

the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, thank you for holding a legislative hearing on these two bills, that's important in an improvement of our process to have this oversight before we markup. i want to welcome by senator gordon smith who is taken over the reins at the national association of broadcasters. i'm still his congressman even if he is not, senator but we have been friends and colleagues in the legislative arena for many years and we welcome you at the nab and now that i've sold are broadcast asians and you got to the broadcasters have to go into p. packin. [laughter] i want to point out a couple of things. i concur with my colleague from illinois on the d -- d block issue but i also want to point at another issue that has come up related to public safety and osher is going to get spoken to today and that is use of the banned by the amateur opera as

wheat evaluate the special and how understand that when 9/11 happen in katrina happens and other communication system fail fan even any day when there is a hurricane or disaster anywhere in the world it is frequently the amateur radio operators to step to the floor with their own equipment and provide emergency communication when everything else fails. it is hard to put a value on that and the supervalu on saving lives and helping our law enforcement community and our rescue committed to get through really difficult times so there are there when needed all the time and so that needs to be a part of what we consider. regarding the fcc notice i'm concerned about what i'm reading. regarding professor benjamin's comments in this paper he is now with the very top adviser to the chairman of the fcc and i hope this committee will look at the things he has had to say including how every dollar of additional cost for broadcasters one less dollar for profit reduces the attractiveness of

the over air broadcasting as a business model, entrenching broadcasting on theç spectrum, then the regulation will notñ[ helpç free up spectrum and to ç avoided. he's calling for the death of over the air rebroadcasting abomination andnb we will get io that more. my time has expiredxr in mr. chairman and i look forward to hearing fromç eyewitnesses. >> thank you veryñ/3 much, mr. walden, and the chair noww3 recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvanias. >> thank you, mr.ççç chairmar holding this hearing. i will wait opening statements. >> thank you, we will add twoç¿ minutes to your question and timing of our panel of witnesses. >> the gentleman from washington, mr. inslee is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you for this hearing, we know how important this is. as we speak i have hundreds if not thousands of constituents designing these new internet services and is important to a

lot of my neighbors and people i represent. it's important to the country for its job creation possibilities and president obama recognized this tremendous job potential.

>> in business planning my this problem and that the sponsoring ceased to address. fundamentally our bill will increase the amount and quality of information available to potential bidders before an auction occurs in seconds expedites the flow of auction proceeds to the relocating agencies to keep the relocation process on track. i am convinced this more complete information about the effective federal agency systems, the relocation cost estimates and schedules will reduce the risk for potential bidders. it will ensure timely relocation payment and movement by federal agencies and will ensure that the next generation of consumer demand and services are delivered. it will not cure the common cold otherwise it sounds pretty good. i want to thank my colleague mr. upton and chairman for dancing this and look for to moving this to the weekend and fulfill the promise of our billing constituents.

>> thank you very much, the gentleman from nebraska mr. terry is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman for holding this legislative hearing and i look forward to hearing our witnesses. we have to make sure that we do this right and balanced with the spectrum that's used in the military. i have the pleasure of representing the 55th wing which is an electronic warfare in information operations now and of the air force base right side of of law and have a letter from the association that set out some of the issues that we may be discussing here where the spectrum and i would like to offer that letter into the record and. >> without objection. >> then last, in our committee memorandum it starts off with the introduction criticizing the universal service fund calling ineffective and and then the

second paragraph also starts off with the universal service so somehow universal service fund is important in this discussion and i look forward to your comments on how universal service fund it affects the spectrum in your usage of it. >> thank you very much mr. terry. the gentle lady from california is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and i thank you for calling this a burning hearing today and i also like to thank today's witnesses for being with us. we are here to discuss how we can promote greater transparency of spectrum issues for expediting the process in which allocating additional spectrum in the marketplace. according to recent estimates there are approximately two and 7 million wireless subscribers in the u.s. but that number is growing. according to recent reports the current economic recession has increased the number of consumers are opting for of the cellphones over traditional landlines and there's concern

that the current allocation of spectrum for mobile broadband services is inadequate to meet the rapidly growing demand. in fact, the sec one of the potential special crisis that could threaten expansion of broadband services. while the dtv transition how to free up more spectrum the need for commercial speech and capacity will only expand as broad bank continues to be delivered to more areas. to ensure transparency and help ensure we meet demand chairman waxman have introduced the radios by sherman inventory act and congressman in silly and often have introduced by relocation of an act. ensuring competition, improve public safety, and me to growing demand for services and any proposal calling for run should ensure underserved over communities are properly considered. i think mr. chairman for holding the support hearing today and i yield back the balance of my

time. >> thank you. the gentle lady from tennessee is blackburn is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, i want to think the panel before us today, we're delighted you are here and i am also delighted the mr. chairman and that we are talking about legislation and that actually represents what is a balanced give and take. that is not something we often do in this congress, all too often talking about taking from the american taxpayer and giving to business. but today we are going to be talking at raising money from big business proved unequal exchange been of value for a commodity. in this represents good policy and good government and have pleased you're having the hearing. as we plot a strategy on how we move forward on broadband and how to best utilize the spectrum, i am one of many of this committee as you have heard to have a long advocated for an

effective and efficient inventory and assessment of what is available and how we best use it in how we best allocated. i think it is important, mr. shimkus mentioned that d block, and some of the work that needs to be done as we learned some lessons to. from that approach. we know that this is a robust industry, we know that well over 80 percent of consumers are happy with their wireless service according to recent gao study. that's pretty good, 80 percent of people like the product that is there and is available. now there is ample motivation to get as much information as possible on spectrum availability and evaluate all of our options and for relocation so i am pleased to we are bringing many different parts of this discussion together today and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you ms. blackburn. the gentle lady -- i'm sorry,

the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman for convening today's hearing on to the bipartisan bills that are intended to make -- help our country make better use of spectrum. h.r. 3125, radio spectrum inventory act will provide for the gathering information about specter of use to increase transparency and help us understand exactly how spectrum is now utilized. this is no small task. but it's absolutely essential to make informed decisions on allocating spectrin team needs the ever increasing demand for wireless broadband spectrum. it has been reported that the u.s. allocation of spectrum compares poorly with oecd nations and is inadequate to meet their growing demand. we can't let that happen. we are going to do the best we can to help industry take a lead with bamenda make in our nation

lead the world in broadband. h.r. 3019, spectrum allocation in improvement act streamlines the spectrum auction process and will reduce the time required to reallocate federal spectrum cleared for commercial use allowing licensees to utilize their spectrum without unnecessary delay. as a cosponsor of both of these bills i recognize the importance of properly managing the available spectrum. i also understand that the sponsors of age of 3125 are working with the department of defense to ensure that the bill also pre-tax ongoing military use of the spectrum, i look for to working with my colleagues to approve this legislation. i think the witnesses for taking time to share their perspective on this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. the gentleman from michigan and

mr. upton is recognized for two minutes. >> not here. the gentleman from indiana, mr. boyer, is recognized for to ms. >> asked that my time be placed on a question and i welcome my friend in court and smith. >> the gentleman will have added time. the gentleman -- gentle lady from the virgin islands ms. christensen is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman, i'm going to also weighed my statement and put it into the record. i'd like to welcome the witnesses, especially senator smith who i believe is here for the worst time. >> thank you, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you so much for having this hearing. backing in -- back in 1993 we were in a world where there were two cell phone companies, each charged about $0.50 a minute and it was analog.

but in 1993 this committee moved over 200 megahertz of spectrum and we created the third, fourth, fifth and sixth cellphone licenses that went digital and by 1996 the price had dropped to under $0.10 a minute. ..

>> it should be bipartisan again. we're into a wealth creation. that's what this is all about. and the more effectively that we can think this issue through. bomb bomb which is more likely that we will create the greatest thank you very much. the general lady is recognized for two minutes. >> because it's impossible, mr. chairman, to follow.

we are pleased to have each of you with us today. steve largent, former member of the house of representatives and former member of this committee was the president and chief

we welcome gordon smith to the committee for the first time. dr. johnson is the senior vice president and chief technology of martin lockheed. we welcome each of you. without objection, your prepared written statement will be made a part of the record. we will ask that you keep your oral summers to approximately 5 minutes. mr. hatfield, we will be happy to begin with you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> and if you could be sure the microphone is on and pull it close, we could hear you much better. >> thank you. members of the subcommittee, i'm pleased and honors to appear

before you today to testify on the topic of radio spectrum management. and in particularly on the issues raised by hr3125 and hr3019. my name is dale hatfield, in addition to the position you mentioned i'm also the executive director with the university of colorado at boulder. i should note i've engaged in some freelance. as i detailed in my prepared testimony, i have other affiliations. today i'm testifying on my own behalf as a private citizen. now in my written testimony i present some background on spectrum management and focus on five overarching themes or points p this is those five points that i will briefly summarize now. first, i have been involved in

spectrum management issues for over four decades. it's very clear we are at a demand for access to the spectrum in the critical frequency range of 300 megahertz to 3 gigahertz. the number of uses and the number of users and the amount of bandwidth or capacity consumed per use. while the growth in commercial and cellar is perhaps the most visible, there are a host of other increasing demands for spectrums as well. including ones that support support -- important ones that support public safety, homeland security, and national defense priorities. thus, in my opinion, the spectrum scarcity issue that the legislation sets out to address is very real. second, in my written testimony, i review five traditional

techniques that we have used in the past to accommodate growth and demand for the resource. one, going higher and frequency. two, improving the technical efficiency of spectrum utilization. three, reallocating existing from one use to another. four, increasing the amount of spectrum sharing. and five, we using spectrum more intensely in the geographic dimension. i conclude for technical reasons, going higher of frequency will be of limited utility in solving the crisis associated with wireless mobile data applications. and while further improvements in technical efficiency can help, they are apt to be inadequate in solving the problems with the orders of magnitude and demand. that leaves reallocation, increased sharing, and more intense frequency at least in some services as potential

service solution. albite ones with challenging of their own. third, setting aside reallocation for the moment, i next focused on increasing sharing and more intense frequency reuse. with regard to the former, i comment favorably on past steps in the fcc has taken to encourage voluntary sharing through the resource of secondary markets. i go on to conclude that a combination of increased incentives for mandates, coupled with more decentralized and more technologically can help in avoiding high prices. in terms of increased frequency reuse, i first note it's not always possible. in other words, some services like ray , high power operating over long distances. you can't reuse it on a

geographic basis as easily. i also want to note that at the spectrum that we use may be constrained with availability of suitable antenna locations and economic backhaul payments. fourth, i comment that i am a strong supporter of conducting the spectrum inventories that are called out in hr3125 and hence for the legislation itself because i am a strong believer in that old adage, you can't manage what you don't measure. it's simply, it's that simple. i go on to conclude that a comprehensive and ongoing inventory is necessary to support two of the most promising of the three ways of averting a spectrum crisis. that is reallocation and increased sharing. fifth, i observe that while i am a strong supporter of conducting inventory, i also note based on

many years of experience that already short comings associated with a paper study. at least in some services. therefore, i conclude that the inventory mandated in the proposed legislation should be augmented by selected field measurements to gain additional information on actual usage in those bands as identified as being the most promising for reallocation or increased sharing. that concludes my oral. , mr. chairman. i'd be happy to respond to any questions that you or the rest of the subcommittee might have. >> thank you very much. mr. lar largent we'll be happy to hear from you. >> thank you. i hope you had a merry christmas, happy new year. i hope you get there. i want to thank you for the community to share the wireless industry's views on the act and spectrum relocation improvement act. these bills are much needed book ins for a process to be made

available for the wireless broadband initiative and other services. today the united states is the world leader in wireless broadband. while having less than 7%, the u.s. is is home to more than 20% of global 3g subscribers. our 112 million are more than any other country. and more than the 3, 4, 5th and 6th countries combined. additionally, the most advanced wireless devices routinely debut in the united states. high speed internet access and the evolution of handsets from telephones to powerful handheld computers promises to transform the way we work, learn, deliver health care, manage energy consumption, and enhance public safety. the key to translating that

promise into reality is access to more spectrum. ctia believers that's an urgent need to identify the spectrum that can be made able and other advance wireless services. by providing for a comprehensive and timely inventory of spectrum, below ten giga hertz, it would represent a step in demand and u.s. leadership in the global marketplace. how much spectrum? by 2015, developed countries will need at least 1300 megahertz of spectrum for commercial wireless operations. since the united states currently has less than 500 megahertz of spectrum available, we have asked the fcc to identify additional spectrum that can be reallocated to help us meet the itu's benchmark. many of our trading partners are taking steps towards this goal.

and the u.s. needs to keep up if we're to stay ahead. a properly con subjected inventory effort is a sound place to start. the inventory is only the first step. once the inventory is complete, they must use it to reallocate spectrum for advance wireless services. history indicates that to put such spectrum in the hands of providers of commercial, mobile services. giving the exploding demand, we must hew more quickly than the case with aws or 700 megahertz effort. we simply can't wait until 2020 or beyond. we recognize there will be critics of the effort. they will claim that dariers should be more efficient with the spectrum already available. that we can build our way out of the problem. or that we have already seen an expansion in the amount of spectrum available for commercial services through the recent aws and 700 megahertz

options. there are sound reasons why they should dismiss the criticisms. i've discussed this in my written statement. once the inventory is complete, the improvements to the spectrum relocation process proposed by hr3019 will ensure that the relocation process works smoothly for all parties. thank you for the community to discuss these matters with the subcommittee. we look forward to working with you to ensure the u.s. wireless industry continues to serve as an engine for jobs, economic growth, and the american competitive advantage. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. largent. mr. calabrese. >> good morning. first i'd like to thank the committees leadership for taking up these two very complimentary and important pieces of legislation on a notably bipartisan basis. not nearly affordable broadband

but of seemless mobile conductivity anywhere and any time will require an enormous increase in available spectrum capacity. the apple iphone has proven to be the canary. advanced smart phone consume hundreds of times of ordinary cell phones. with sufficient spectrum, conductivity will become integrated as well in application for sensing, mobile health monitoring, energy conservation, education and more. this exploding demand as the continued focus on exclusive licenses has served to reinforce the conventional wisdom. in reality, the only scarcity is government permission to use spectrum. that is licensing. p spectrum capacity itself is very abundant. even in the most valuable beach front, actual spectrum use measurements show that the vast

majority of frequency bands are not being used in most locations and at most time. this gross underutilization should be a concern. it is not only immensely valuable, but it's one that renewable, every millisecond. that is why new america and the broader public interest spectrum coalition that we work with strongly support enactment of hr3125. the radio spectrum inventory act. we agree that the more comprehensive inventory described is needed. a more granular will assist policymakers, entrepreneurs, and technologist to provide new ways to enhance both access and efficiency. we also agree it is important to extent up to 10 gigahertz. it would help facilitate in at

least three ways. first, my improving the functioning of secondary markets. for license transfers and leasing. second, it will provide information on what it would take to clear some very underutilizeed bans for new uses. third, it will reveal the far greater number that can be made available for shared access in discreet areas at certain times of the day or year. or certain altitudes or power levels. we expect rule areas to be the most likely and immediate beneficiaries of the this mapping. the one shortcoming of hr31 that in our view is that the inventory of spectrum assignments should be augmented by actual spectrum use measurements. as dale just mentioned. can provide knew answer window

into how, when, where, and to what extent bands are actually in use. we realize that measurements add budgetary cost. fortunately, we believe appropriate funds are available over the next four years for a very robust implementation of the inventory act. as part of recovery act congress appropriated $350 million for a quote, comprehensive nationwide inventory map of the nation's existing broadband capacities. since ntia will award less than half of the available funding, be used for air waves as well. we also strongly support hr3419, the improvement act. nowhere is spectrum utilization more evident than in many of the bands reserved for the federal government itself. while we support hr3119.

we also believe the legislation should be broadened to take advantage of the critical opportunity to free up far greater capacity. hr3119 would continue to limit eligibility for radio system modernization to agencies actually clearing off a set of frequencies. while only a tiny fraction of federal spectrum could be cleared and auctions, a far greater numbers of bands could be shared more intensively, by taking advantage of advances in smart radio technologies. federal spectrum needs the resources to take affirmative steps to enable more intensive access and band sharing by other users. this could be a real win/win for the military. new systems could be designed and procured with the access in mind. and not only in the very limited case of a band being cleared for auction.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. members of the committee. this is indeed of a pleasure and privilege for me to be before you. to speak a few thoughts about spectrum on behalf of the national association of broadcasters. first, any inventory spectrum should be comprehensive. let's look at all of the bands and services. including the federal government bands. let's view how each service is using the existing spectrum. second our national priority should recognize the value that free over the air broadcasting brings to every american. broadcasting and broadband are not either or propositions. i believe that's a false choice. third we should challenge all services to be efficient and

innovative users. through our recent transition to digital, broadcasting has become more efficient. with your help, the transition was a resounding success. and the benefits are remarkable. in a digital world, viewers receive many new programming streams and a wide variety of content and local news in high definition. it would be short sided to stunt that growth and dampen what is an even brighter future for broadcasting. if broadcasting is limited or eliminated, consumer investment and expectations in dtv severs would be stranded. consumers spend $25 billion in hdtv sever in -- severs --

receivers. the government spent $2 billion to help them with this. prosecutors span an additional $10 billion to make the transition. for years consumers have been promised that the digital upgrade would be usher in a new era of high-quality television. with new and more diverse programming. more channels and a most of new services. over the air. consumers would realize none of these benefits. through the dtv, broadcasters gave back spectrum. broadcast television is the first wireless service to ever substantially reduce the

spectrum use while providing an increase in services. then there's mobile dtv. turning on the broadcasting. and the result is nothing short of funning. members of the committee, this is a mobile dtv, this is a mobile tv. right now it's playing a program from nbc. there are seven channels in the washington, d.c. metropolitan area that are doing this. it's also a cell phone. and this combination of technology, is, i believe the future of mobile wireless communication. it is not an exaggeration to say that you will soon be able to receive broadcast television

signals on almost any device. this is an example. soon you're blackberry will be a tv. your iphone could be a tv. you name it, it's -- we're on the cusp of it. to short circuit it now would be very wrong. broadcasting ability, this is very important to understand. broadcasting ability to serve one too many in small bandwidth segments. it is unique among all services. at moments of national tragedies on millions of americans seeking information. without any additional burden on the spectrum.

by contract, with wireless broadband, each stream of content, every individual placed an additional strain on the wireless network. clogging up the bandwidth. and there's more. for example, a company is working with broadcast to provide a friendly system. you haven't seen this, i urge you. that system was more affordable, high quality, and an alternative in more affordable alternatives than cable and satirize. it comprehensive objective examine of the spectrum allocation in use is a worthwhile endeavor. such an analysis if done rightly and without dice will demonstrate that broadcast has continued to be the effective custodian of our nation's air waves. many broadcast services have not

been and cannot be efficiently replicated by broad banted service. broadcasters, for example, help to save lives through timely coverage of natural disasters and other emergencies. and by coordinates with local law enforcement officials, via amber alert, broadcasters have participated in the recovery of 400 -- 492 abducted children. >> mr. smith, if you could wrap up. you're a bit beyond your time. >> let's not forget the devices. we spent a lot of time to get it right. we did it so that economically disadvantaged, the elderly, are not left out, with access to critical news and information. and finally, mr. chairman, if statement is in the record, i think it is important that we

consider highest and best and you put all of these public values in. the value of broadcasting itself. thank you, sir. >> thank you very much, mr. smith. dr. johnson. >> chairman and ranking member, and members of the subcommittee. senior vice president of the chief technology officer. my role in the corporation provides me with a broad perspective relevant to the discussion today. i appreciate the opportunity to contribute. and i'm honored to offer input that may help inform your consideration of these important policy matters. lockheed martin is a security company that em employed 140,000 people in all 50 states. we are engaged in the research, design, develop, and integration, and sustainment of

advance technology system product and services in most of these systems. and it depends on access to the spectrum that we are discussing. at any given time, lockheed martin holds approximately 400 authorizations for a variety of reasons. including experimental licenses that enable the testing of new tech nothings as well as new applications. if they are required to meet increasing demands. therefore, it's an important balance in hr3125 achieves by requiring an inventory of federal and nonfederal resources in conducted by the fcc and the

ncia. although the own activities and developing advantage systems and solutions with many federal government needs, we see growth and requirements in terms of access to bandwidth intensity applications whether that's video streaming or surveillance from a high altitude. lockheed martin endorses hr3125 act. we do have some concerns. and ask the bill will modified. i noted the stated purpose of h hr3125. while the does not ask for the analysis, the proposed section 119a1e steered in that direction. however, there's no single metric that spans all communications and noncommunications of the spectrum. which can be used for points

comparison. the intensity of use is not correlated with the effect for many users. measuring as a proxy is also appropriate. they deliver tremendous value to our country. most important to the national and homeland security. but do not directly generate revenues. second, we are concerned that the bill will require fcc and ntia to disclose sensitive information that should not be disclosed. it does not only impact the federal government but some fcc licensees like lockheed martin. we agree with the stated concern and note that from the security perspective, it is very important to recognize that the release of individual unclassified data points can result in sensitive information being disclosed when viewed

more. third, i would like to raise the concern to the subcommittee regarding the possible misinterpretation of the legislation. one is the message that is sent to our allies in the international community, given the scope and mr. vision requiring recommendation for reallocation. the department of defense aped the defense industry has worked hard to achieve an international spectrum to support. the other concerns is the requirement for annual review. this review can create a impression of volatility and instability, thus impacting the long-term research and system and solutions. suggestions of instability and access could result in a chilling effect of a long-term technology investments. finally, we have identified a few technical issues with the drafting of the bill that we will submit separately to the staff. while i'm here today to address hr3125, i would like to note

that we do have some concerns with 3119 as well. we would be happy to offer followup discussions with the subcommittee. mr. chairman, i appreciate having the opportunity to testify. hr3125 is a good start. lockheed martin commends you and the other sponsors for taking the initiative to draft legislation to address this issue. we hope that you will agree with our suggestions to improve the bill. we look forward to working with you throughout the legislative process. i'm happy to answer any questions that you have. >> thank you very much, dr. johnson. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify. my testimony this morning will focus on two main points. first, determine how and if spectrum resources are being used efficiency. a spectrum inventory on data base must include data. second, unless the database is

compiled, we don't want to jump to conclusions on what's next. because new technology presents alternatives that have not existed until now. i've been involved in the wireless industry for over 25 years. in the early 1990s, i was president of the personal communication which help wireless industry win the reallocation of the microwave spectrum for new personal communication services. which were the service that were referenced by congress. then i founded and ran a companialed columbia management to facilitate and negotiate the relocation of fixed microwave in the bans for the auction winners. since march of this year, i've been the ceo of shared spectrum. it is a small technology company located in vienna, virginia. since the founding of the company in 200, dr. martin henry has been conducted studies to document the ontap potential of

many unusualed frequency bands. attached is a list of our studies to date. the video monitors are also displays some sample results of our measurements. these include new york and washington, d.c. during areas of high-radio traffic. they indicate that less than 1:00 3 vg being used at any given time -- 1/3 was being used at any given time. the access welcomes dsa technology, dsa takes advantage of the mp speckture in changing parameters. this allows for more efficient wireless communications without interfering or requiring the dislocation of legacy systems using the same bands. the company developed dsa over the past nine years. and this technology is now being implemented in several military

radio systems. we are also exploring several commercial applications including new cost effective world wireless broadband systems. as has been pointed out throughout the hearing, the demand for spectrum across all sectors and markets is substantially increasing. we agree that the necessary first step in confronting the spectrum is to conduct a comprehensive study of the nation's resources. we're therefore, pleased to support the radio spectrum inventory act. the bill would provide guidance to the fcc and ntia to work together to create allocations and assignments. it is also important to have information of the actual use of the air waves. virtually every service with can show a need for the spectrum. and most incumbents will argue that they make effective use. thus compiling a database will be interesting. but that alone will fail to show

how much orer if the spectrum is being utilized. we cause what's next for the particular radio band. to consume that the next step would be a traditional reallocation proceeding, what amount you have planned for years and years of fighting amount entrenched interest that have no notion. this is based on my personal experience to be reallocated. that looked like the fast track come paired to most reallocation efforts that have dragged on for more than ten years. new tech nothing enable more use from the allocations and can create new opportunities for sharing with the existing services in underout losed bands. the interest in finding additional spectrum for wireless broadband services is more

likely to be accommodated in a timely manner if the framework is established that included dsa enables sharing with government and nongovernment. such a framework would focus on legacy bands with flexible rights and responsibilities. this approaches that involve refocusing certain bands would be too difficult, too costly, too time consuming. and in light of new technology, unusual. instead, a better policy would build upon the approach. the licensees, the licenses were auctioned were subject to noninterference requirement with the existing microwave incumbents. while most of those were relocated to new systems, the advances made in dsa and radio technology, now provide the available to coexist with legacy systems that was not available at that time. thank you again for the

opportunity to testify. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. stroup. and thanks to all of our witnesses for your informative remarks here this morning. particularly, i appreciate the broad consensus that is evident from your testimony about the need to move forward with both of the bills that are the subject of our legislating hearing this morning. particularly, the need for inventory of spectrum that could be rehall indicated for commercial purposes? a number of you most recently, mr. stroup, just mentioned the potential of spectrum sharing. as a way to accommodate new commercial services with within our spectrum constraints. could you talk a little bit about the state of the technology with regard to spectrum sharing and what potential really does it hold? and what limitations does it face? and who would like to begin? mr. hatfield? >> yes. thank you.

i think it's -- >> could you pull that microphone just a bit closer. >> i think there's sharing if you look at in two ways. it's important. we avoid a share in a lot of the existing spectrum. we call that static sharing. for example, an antenna pointed at a satellite are pointing in different direction. that provides sufficient isolation that a satellite system can share with the terrestrial system. that static sharing has been bus for quite some time and used effectively. i think the key here is combining the concept that tom talked about. at the time today, look at more dynamic forms of sharing. for example, you're in town today, and d.c., particular channel might not be used by some private microphone, something like that. that spectrum could be shared on

a dynamic basis. i think the key going forward -- >> so you are not talking about technology. that would allow dynamic sharing. >> given that opportunity, talk a little bit if you would about the state of technology development for actual simultaneous sharing of the same spectrum? >> i'm not sure -- >> i'll be more than happy. >> all right. mr. stroup. >> we have tested this multiple occasions with members of the military and members of the public. we are porting it over to several different radio systems. our expectations is those raid a owes are going to be ready for testing next year and deployed into the field no later.

>> so there's nothing commercially available that would enable spectrum by multiple users. but you're saying this technology is under development and ready for testing potentially next year. >> i would suggest that it's beyond the level of testing, and it is now being deployed into radio systems. within the commercial sector, we agreements with two companies. our expectations on conclusion of that, the development of those rules at sometimes within the next 18 months that will be deployed. >> any other comments mr. calabrese? >> yeah. you know, as you've heard from three of us, there seems to be a far greater opportunity in terms of wandties of spectrum to open it up on a shared or opportunistic basis. and there are a couple of important prez sents that we used to build on. one, i think, you're aware of is of course the military already allows shared use of certain

radar bans. so, thanks in part to the jump start broadband act that was over on the senate side some years ago. the military agreed to open up the five giga hertz bands based on the technology that used dynamic frequency selection. in other words, the devices sense before they transmit. and if they don't detect anything like radar, they operate and keep checking, checking, checking. they can get off real quick. the other important is the order last year on opening the tv white space. for unlicensed sharing. because what the commission has required is a location database. so they will need to have gps. they look up and get a list of

available channels with conditions attached. so we can build on that database that the condition is about to create and add a lot of other frequencies over time that would have conditions attached to them. >> that's very encouraging to hear. i would note that the first commercial application of the white space technology is now occurring in my congressional district. >> right. >> one other question. i'll ask if you have any brief comments about this. are there short comings at the present time in the licensing and spectrum management processes? that are employed by ntia and fcc? if you detect that there are, do you have recommendations for the how the processes could be improved? anyone want to answer? mr. largent?

>> i would just repeat some of the problems as being a short comings that i think are addressed in both of the bills. definite step in the right direction. >> all right. thank you very much. anyone elsement to briefly comment on that? mr. hatfield? >> i would add to the commission has done things in the past to encourage a secondary market. one the things it's centrally controlled. therefore, there's a lot of rigidities built into it. it has gone to the use of secondary markets where they can lease spectrum. that has not worked out quite as well as some of us would hope. >> thank you, mr. hatfield. my time has expired, the gentleman from florida, mr.

stern is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. one of my questions for you is when we had the auction for dtv and raised about $19 billion about and i was a cosponsor, it came the backbone of the generation wireless service. that was one approach. now the other approach appears to be a stimulus package. they put in $7 billion to provides grants. i guess the question would be the auctioning of the spectrum appears to be me would be a more efficient way to do it. which one is more advicable? >> let me just say this. the bottom line is we need to have additional spectrum in the wireless space in order to meet not only the demands but the promise, the hope, of the

broadband world. and so however you get to that point, that's subject to debate and can be even become partisan. but the bottom line is more spectrum is needed. sooner rather than later. the fact is the last two trenches of spectrum that were allocated, 700 megahertz, both of those took ten years. one was about 12 and the other was 16. can get it to come. our thought is this is really a process that we're in the process of developing today. that should have begin years ago if you're still going to take somewhere between 12 and 16 years. so i guess the bottom line is that there's different ways to get to the bottom line. but the important thing is to get to the bottom line. that's additional spectrum for the wireless industry. >> do members of the

association, are they going to benefit from the $7 billion in stimulus package that will be directed at just -- i understand it's going to all go to develop the wire lines? but do you -- do your companies see it as a positive? >> i would say the majority of the money that's been allocated is not going to to -- the companies that are in our association. >> you mentioned just briefly the chairman talked about t-mobile and the spectrum use. so it indicated the problem and the transition. i mentioned in my opening statement. i would think if we want our commercial carriers to repeat and get involved, this would be a flag to them. the vinesment of over $4 billion. how long can they continue to deal with that procrastination? you might give us some ideas on what can be done to improve this reallocation time frame? and perhaps what we in congress

should be aware of. >> well, actually, the second bill that we're talking about today, 3019, actually goes to that subject. once the spectrum is identified, then getting the people that are on the spectrum off the spectrum more expeditiously is really helped by this particular bill that we're talking about today. so my hats off to you. i think congress says -- >> you think that'll do it. >> -- has gone forward and made mistakes. now trying to correct them. that's positive. >> you feel pretty comfort outside? >> no, i'm not positive it's solves all of the problem that is are involved. but it softs that the problems that you know of with the auction process that took place two years ago. >> mr. hatfield, what's steps can be taken to make more efficient use of commercial and government spectrum that's already deployed? >> in my written statement, i go

through the list of short of five techniques that can be used. and the two probably that haven't been talked about as much here is one more technical efficiency. it's like getting more miles per gallon on your car. i mean there's sort of two ways we can improve our transportation efficiency. one is by more miles per gallon, or by car pooling, for example. and sharing that we've talked about here is the car pool analogy. but we also need to look at ways of more efficiently using the spectrum. getting more bits per second, per hertz, as i would say in technical terms. there's a couple of ways of doing that. one is through a compression. reducing the numbers of bits that have to be sent. the other is using more efficient modulation techniques. what scares me as an engineer is those techniques only look like they can provide us with

incremental improvements. i'm not saying we shouldn't, we should. but the difficulty is, they are probably not going to be adequate. so that leads us then to the need for more sharing or reallocation. the other way, just to complete the thought, is through more intense reuse of the spectrum. for example, when your cell phone, the tower maybe two miles away. and therefore, your taking up an area with a two-mile radius. if you shrink it down, then you can use that same channel more and more times in a city like d.c. you can use the same channel seven hundreds times. you can see the cellar carriers have made nevertheless investments in cell towers. that helps a lot. as you keep getting yourself smaller, of course, then you have to get that information in the cell tower back to some central location. that's where i believe the

broadband policy of getting fiber out there intersected with the wireless industry. because the wireless industry needs to get the wireless data back to their central point. and that requires broadband facilities. so i think there's a real link here between what's being done on the broadband policy and wireless? >> mr. chairman, i don't have any further questions. i thought dr. johnson might want to comment on the same question. >> in the commercial/receiver standarders, they already have the standards for radar. none of them exist with commercial systems. there may be opportunities to take some of those. >> the gentleman from michigan, chairman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you. we'd like to welcome our panel, our former colleague and friend. welcome back. i have some questions, since there's so many i have to do this all with yes or noes.

mr. largent, yes or no. as ctia or anyone else conducted usage studies which measure actual traffic to see if the spectrum is being used? >> you're talking about the spectrum that's been allocated for commercial/mobile wireless? >> just spectrum studies been completed to tell us whether the spectrum is being used? >> i'm not sure i understand the question, sir? >> has anybody made any studies to find out if the spectrum is properly being used? ctia? fcc? anybody? >> what i can tell you is the spectrum that we have available to this industry today is used more efficiently than any other country of the world. >> yeah. i'm going to take that as a no. and i thank you for that. now do all ctia carriers operate

at full capacity on their allotted spectrum today? >> no, sir. >> has fcc conducted any use age studies which examine whether the spectrum either by your members or anybody else is being properly and adequately used with regard to that spectrum which is assigned to them? >> i'm not aware of any. >> okay. so the argument seems to be here, i think, that you have enough spectrum for now, but we'll need it 10 years or some future time? is that correct? >> we have enough now. we'll need it before ten years. >> i agree with you. our problem is to see how we're going to get the spectrum efficiently allocated. if you remember from that time, we had a serious problem to the fact that the spectrum was just

thrown out by the fcc and by the government to be sold by budgetary reasons as opposed to addressing the proper use of the spectrum. now do all witnesses starting on your right and my left, how do you view hr3125 and hr3019? do you view it as complimentary to the fccs work to develop the national broadband plan? yes or no? starting on your far right, if you please, sir. >> simple yes or no, yes. >> sir? >> yes. >> sir? >> yes, very much. >> sir? >> the answer is yes. but i believe it could be expanded. >> next witness, please, sir. >> no. >> no? >> and the last witness. >> yes. >> now if the completion of national broadband should be delayed pending enactment of

hr3125 and hr3019. how long should such delay be? starting again on your far right and my far left. how long could or should that delay be? >> i think the -- i think the requirement is so great that we do not want to wait pending moving -- making some of these stepping pending the inventory. >> mr. largent? >> i would agree with that. the sooner the better. >> next witness please. >> yeah. likewise, there are bands and things? >> how long while we wait for the studies to be completed? sir? next witness.

chairman dingell, the answer is not good. but delay is better if you don't have the right information. so if you need the right information, delay may be necessary. >> i'm no special pleader for delay. my concern is if we do it, we do it well. and i'm not satisfied up until this time that we have been doing these things well. i'm very much troubled that we will expand that bad history by again doing things poorly. >> i agree with that. >> i don't want to wind up with a mess on our hands because we have built upon a false fact. >> we have the actual measurement that is will help identify bands for spectrum sharing. >> all right. mr. chairman, i note my four seconds over my time. i yield back with thanks to

you. >> thank you very much chairman, dingell. >> the chairman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. i want to thank the witnesses for your testimony as well. all of you. especially dr. johnson appreciated your technical council on the legislation as well. senator smith, i want to go to you regarding this notion put forth by the distinguished scholar and residence at the fcc for first amendment, dr. benjamin. in his pay wish this is just from may of this year, he writes the most obvious are probably those that are peer deadweight loss. they have significant amounts of money, but have no impact on their behavior. this category would include recordkeeping, et cetera, these are unlikely to have any impact on programming and thus will

likely be pure cost. his thesis is, which i ask to put in the record, roasting the pig burned down the house, is to make it so costly on broadcasters that they surrender their spectrum. i find it offensive. i don't know why now in this position at the fcc. and i'll follow up on that. given the fact that we just went through a $2 billion conversion for dtv and digital technology that mobile, and you make the argument in your statement about how every new subscriber to that free over the air digital mobile service makes that even more efficient. because you're not adding to this stream. aren't we just throwing the $2

billion into a paper shredder? >> congressman, yes, you are throwing $2 billion away. you are throwing away potentially untold billions that the u.s. citizens have spent and detrimental reliance upon the congressional urging of the digital transition. suffice to say, my phone has been ringing off the hook since the gentleman's work has been revealed. that said, i think what he does is simply try to monetize highest and best use in pure dollar terms, disregarding all of the other public values that are served through localism, local news, local sports, local weather. these are things that i think, you know, particularly when it comes to emergency information, amber alerts, how do you monetize that? and it has to say when it comes

to broadcasting and the broadcast air waves, it's always been a public option. to make sure that everybody gets served. everybody seems to be suggest that maybe should be yesterday. >> all right. dr. johnson i raised the issue in my opening statement about the amateur radio broadcast service. we are the two licensed amateur radio operators, which gives up license to be real hands in politicians. and i'm just curious that as you look at spectrum, what's the amateur radio licensees be concerned about? what threats and value do you see in that spectrum? >> i won't be able to give you a full detailed answer. because i have not looked at that particular issue. and until i do, i would support, however, aped i also am a ham raidee operate -- radio operator

. i would support your thesis for the backup for the national security. i think they are also a valuable resource for citizens who have an interest in that kind of technology. and although there are other avenues to address those same issues now, outside of the ham bands, i think they are still important. we'd be happy to look at the technical details to the challenges. >> all right. do you have any comment on the amateur radio ban? tell me a ham radio operator too? would you? >> i think my license just expired. i got into the business as a ham 13 or 14 years old. something like that. i think the problem that the amateur radio community has is that they do provide a very, very vital final sort of backup communication network. it's totally decentralized. there's nothing central that can fail. that's really critical. the problem is if you tune

across the back, soop they are idle. if someone was clever, we could figure out ways that would not diminish the amateur opportunity for use of the energy. but in nonemergency might be used for some other vital public interest and purposes as well. :

i found the testimony very informative and i didn't hear anyone say i don't like this legislation. i think dr. johnson has a little reservation about the definition so i appreciate that and i'll ask in a minute to expand on that but first i want to say expanding the range at 10 vigorous, there seems to be disagreements on math. and i'm not sure exactly why you think going up to 10 in gig vs. of that useful, is its mr. hatfield? >> my doctorate is honorary. >> that is good enough remain. >> i get a little squishy about using mack. but i think the answer is there may be some confusion. it is the range of two roughly three gigahertz that is critical to people like the cellular

industry so that is the most critical. on the other hand, if some of the services we might want to relocate could go higher it would still work okay if they win higher in frequency so i thank you can make the argument we ought to look all the way up to 10 to see if there's opportunities for example, that some could be reallocated from the love. >> there are physical limitations after line of sight? >> that is correct for mobile applications and for certain a greater applications, for example being up there for you have line of sight it might work perfectly fine so that's what i think is perhaps the basis for the difference. i would support going up higher for that purpose but we mustn't kill herself a mother our technical limitations that would prevent sids for certain applications. >> dr. johnson and, you did mention the idea that there is no single magic for efficiency. is there anyone out there you are aware of zero would be

useful for a set of definitions? >> we think that's a single definition like intensity of the use is not appropriate. we propose these in a variety of metrics that correspond to the critical parameters related to a particular system application being used. for example, metrics for communication systems would be different than radar system. >> so are you going to supply the committee with that information? >> we are pleased to work within metrics. >> we're interested in working on examining the metric definitions. the last thing i have is the notion that the paper inventory isn't going to be adequate. i didn't quite appreciate that. i come from a technical background in the when miss jastropha showed in the grass with all those blanks basis people that own special will want to say we use all of

it and don't need to reallocate so we will need to do testing to validate it seems to me like fairly on the basis of what was spoken here this morning a fairly big task to really doesn't have much spectrum is available out there. could you comment on that? >> yes, congressman we submitted suggestions as to some short-term approaches as well as long-term approaches and we recommend approximately 10 to 20 stations supplemented by mobil testing and over a longer time in a larger number perhaps if a judge to with universities and other organizations to compile an ongoing inventory of how the spectrum is being used. >> as foreign to take a lot of time and resources and a lot of money. even of what you have called a short that seems like a fairly big undertaking. >> i believe him that the ntia and other organizations, national science foundation have compiled this information so some of it is there, our studies

are already available publicly and can be integrated into this database so it is not as large as entertaining as it may seem but i agree overall long-term and there is a great deal of data that will be compiled. the national institute of technology is conducting ongoing studies in chicago, they have over two terabytes of information collected from that location the. >> family to live my written statement the costs of coming down for doing this so far samo of calm, the telecom regulators in britain, recently completed a nationwide drive test of their airwaves and they mounted measuring devices to us on the rooftops of the national vehicle fleets of which we could do with the postal service or whatever and then beckett's downloaded over wi-fi. there is very inexpensive device is now that have enmeshed monitoring network that is being field tested in the dc area

fairly soon by a company we're hoping to have on the roof of our building in downtown. >> my time is expired, dr. hatfield if you have a quick response. >> in my written testimony i said one of the things we can do is focus on the vans which looked the most promising said the measurements on the most promising second -- while my stop there. >> i guess it comes down to one of our favorite president saying trust and verify, thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, the gentleman from indiana is recognized for seven men sat. >> thank you. are you familiar with the latest gao report that came out from a mr. largent flex needs to improve and wireless phone service? >> i'm not read the whole thing. >> are you aware of the recommendations of gao, recommended that the sec improve its outreach to consumers about

this complaint process related performance goals and that monitoring compliance, number two, develop guidance of federal oversight rules and develop policies for communicating with states. are you familiar? >> more with the tax that they uncovered first that was in that report that showed that 84% -- >> you are getting ahead of me. [laughter] >> let's go right there. i'm asking they have these recommendations based on his so i want to ask you to comment about what they're based on. when you look at all of the choices for consumers have going into the christmas shopping season and all levels of satisfaction which two comment on the basis of the tax they relied upon for these? >> well, i think it's not the way i would have written the report based upon the statistics they found in the study.

knowing this industry is i have for the last six years and seeing the consumer complaints declined every. a consumer satisfaction and fill up every year we feel like that is a movement in the right direction. 84 percent approval by a our consumers is not good enough for us. we continue to want to raise that even more. but it's a heckuva positive mark for the industry. no and i hope to be able to sit before you in a year are to end be able to talk about how we're no longer an 84% higher today. i think the report did highlight some things that the fcc can be about that would improve their service. of the bottom line is that it was -- i think it is a star for the wireless industry to show the improvement of our service for customers. >> regarding to your member

companies and they make competition, when consumer satisfaction be one of the important elements? >> absolutely, it's the key statistic that they look at all the time. >> hi excited when i listen to my good friend mr. markey. share his excitement's about competition in the marketplace. and so i would share with my good friend of mr. markey that when you rejoice in competition in the marketplace and is bringing consumers' relative to choice two not be so eager to get more government control if, in fact, the marketplace is thriving consumer satisfaction paradigm of. >> the other point that life if i would have little latitude mr. chairman because i'm also a co-sponsor of this legislation that like to shift gears and turned to mr. smith then asked

particular question and it may drive mr. chairman -- i think we shouldn't take a relative look here at comcast nbc. so i'm going to ask a question about comcast and nbc mr. smith. i've done some concerns about your member companies out there, concerns about consolidation in the marketplace. concerns about what type of new business model does this spring, what its impact and how the city revenue model for advertising. you held up your phone and talked about this as a multimedia platform as we have a market place as you try to judge into the future is all about individualizing of advertising and i can almost see we are going to permit the market place to begin to mine in profile people of that pretty soon even advertising its striven not upon a web you can almost have

individualized advertising appearing up on tv. so as i tried to think about it into the future and how vertical integration is this kind of deal we have this many eyes of comcast and being able to control contents it almost turns our present business model inside out upside-down. i welcome your comments on -- >> congressman, some of my members are for it, some of them are very concerned about and i'm with my friends. [laughter] >> very good, senator kerry [laughter] >> the nab has not taken a position on this at this juncture. we are simply going to watch and see what kind of conditions develop. but we are very attuned to the issue and the problems that you just cited in. >> the supreme court talk about the importance of having a diversity out there, our media and that's back in the 40's.

with regard to ideas. if i were one of your member companies and i'm a small company and have a couple of nbc affiliate's and maybe cbs affiliate, qinsheng relates to their concerns even about retransmission rights and fees and what impact that's going to have a war upon others whereby a is there going to be cost shifting because of this sort of full integration? >> well, obviously i'm more interested, i answer their phone calls because they are concerned with the very issues you identified. but i assume that the ftc, the fcc and the department will look at all these things have proposed in this since this is two go forward and all and at this juncture it is a feeling of the association that we should allow the process work. >> one of the concerns i have a mr. chairman and why i would encourage the place your eyes and considerations on this issue

of is defined by the silence of. when there is silence in the marketplace because of this type of deal, then tells me that there is great concern in the marketplace and fear that if, in fact, the company were to come have and, against this type of merger, what type of repercussions in the marketplace would, in fact, occur so the fact that there is silence out there is beginning to bother me mr. smith that a lot of their member companies while they may confide in that phone call with you that there's a reason they're not coming out publicly because they don't want to get jammed in their negotiations. and my close here? >> well, i think there are very interested observers of the process and they share the concerns to express. again, we have networks, we have affiliate's, they have most issues in common but this is one where there needs to be an

accommodation, and understanding and legal structure put in place that allows both to survive. >> i disinterred just to put an eye is two have a better understanding so we can see over the horizon and the impact of this merger will have on a multimedia platform in advertising model. >> thank you, let me assure the gentleman our subcommittee will conduct at least one hearing on the contest nbc acquisition at the appropriate time next year. that announcement has been made in the gentleman is quite right in expressing the need for us to focus on this very carefully, it's certainly i intend to do so. the gentleman from michigan, mr. stupak is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, apology to our witnesses for not being here. i was in with constituents and have to take up other meetings. mr. largent, recognizing the challenges that congress and the fcc will face in trying to

relocate as much spectrum as possible our companies within the cia is a splendid possibility that dynamic of spectrum at that dr. hatfield suggested as a possible solution? >> our companies are at a point where they are exploring every opportunity available to them. including how to utilize their own speech and they currently have in use it more efficiently and looked in every other avenue available to them in the years ahead.ñrñr to access for spectrum.w3 >> is in the company within your organization using the dynamic spectrum access? areç in aç shrine to borrow iu will during a peak time surrounding system breaks is that going on now? >> i'm sure they're looking at every option that's available to them. >> okay. mr. smith,ç good to see you and thanks for being here. let me ask you, i think it's important that we look for research for a solution to this

pension crisis that reserves free over the air broadcasting in wireless deployment. in your testimony you decide how they use of white space spectrum and whirl america is a way to support both of these public-interest goals. is this a workable in urban centers as well? >> it may well be, however, we do have a concern about interference and wants to make sure that we don't see grade had a single. >> let me ask you this, has nab conducted in studies that show how much spectrum is needed to fulfil future business plans. >> we are doing a study on that very question because we understand the importance of this issue and wants to have the best information possible. >> any idea when that may be done? >> i don't have a date but i will get that to you

congressman. >> thanks. dr. hatfield, we talk about the spectrum prices ended is its only have to worry about that for the high population centers or is it a national issue? nie oral area we have places where we don't have anything. >> exactly. is primarily a large urban area issue and even within that urban area there are some real hot spots, an example would be a football stadium on sunday afternoon. having said that, i think i tend to drive the market into parts and that is the urban problem and we need these more dynamic way is to be able to use the spectrum in the rural areas that is not needed because of the lack of population density. >> let me ask you this, is more access to specialty on the issue the fcc in this committee should

be focused on or other other efficiency gains that can be explored with next check for generations board phones? >> as i indicated in my written testimony i don't hold out an awful lot of hope for some of the traditional solutions for the major urban areas of. but there are certainly examples that i gave my compression and so forth that we should be pursuing. i don't think they saw the technical solutions to solve the problem completely. >> if we start using smart phones with the manufacturer sort of help alleviate some of the problems we will see with freeing them more spectrum? can that be a solution? can we find it in manufacturing as opposed to the fcc and government? >> i don't see how the handsets by themselves into an awful lot

to improve with the exception of the sort of dynamic spectrum access where the handset is smart enough that it is looking around to see with other specter might be available in moving to so we can use the intelligence in the hands sense to find additional spectrum. i'm not sure how intelligence in the hands said will improve the efficiency of existing spectrum use beyond incremental improvements. >> mr. calabrese, did you want to add something? >> talking about in my written statements about the importance of encouraging hybrid networks because as a dale said, reaching the limits, the technical efficiency limits, we are also reaching limits in terms of how close the carriers can bring it sell sides and back call to the consumer so you need to shrink the cell size and get more reuse and one way to do that is right now we have pending at the fcc our rules to extend the carter

fund, a device joyce to wireless and consumers have the choice of any device, the device is increasingly of a type that will be on the fly what is my most economical path and then in most cases that will be like in a place like this at home and offices and public spaces, it will be over unlicensed by truman into local back, and consumer provided back call and that will offload a lot of traffic from caris. >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. murphy recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman very much. dr. hatfield, you are talking here about the pasadena were dynamic sharing of spectrum. so that we can make more efficient use currently allocated spectrum. what percentage of our spectrum and need to do you think can be

satisfied just by use of dynamic sharing? >> i have not look that is candidly in that quantitative way. but i think -- i'm not going to answer you satisfactorily but i think it's sufficient enough to be a significant health. i don't think it gets us all the way. >> so what you are talking about here is something which is supplemental to what the needs are going to be in the future but not a substitute for transfer of spectrum in order to do with the issue, is that right? >> i guess i would put a slightly different. we are going to need to use all of these different techniques. >> i use it is polysyllabic words put in very simple english. using everything. do you agree with that, mr.

largent? it reminds me of a discussion of cafe standards, improvement of efficiency of vehicles for appliance efficiency where can we use new technology here to get better efficiency out of the automobiles or out of the appliances which we use but at the same time also want to do the research on all new technologies, al-awja vehicles, to move at of the old technologies and that's what we're talking. how do get the additional spectrum but also squeeze out the maximum efficiency at of the old technology so how do you view it mr. largent? >> i have a chart here that i will submit for the record and give to you but if you like to look at it but basically talks about how efficient different countries utilize spectrum available to them. and in the u.s. we have 270 million consumers and we use

a per megahertz six sandra 60,000 consumers provide generous of spectrum use and that is the most efficient by a factor of a lease to of any other countries save mexico actually, they have 79 million users there, but we absolutely are using this is if first venture available in the most efficient way possible. and sometimes by magnitude of two of. >> mr. smith? >> you're question to us is about this balance between squeezing efficiencies out of the old technology as opposed to moving over the spectrum to augment what we now have allocated so that we can maximize the wealth generating opportunities. >> i think it's one of the miracles we have a csea how much efficiently we are using the spectrum answer in the broadcasting is invested billions to achieve that

efficiency. in i do believe because we have seen the explosion of technology you spoke of at the beginning of the hearing congressman that there are going to be compression technologies that will provide some of the answer here so we can preserve the broadband in the broadcast values that the committee seeks to serve. >> thank you. dr. johnson. >> ad-litem to make a couple comments. first of all, the department of defense one of our principal customers is driven toward increasing efficiency. we mentioned briefly in my testimony the use of unmanned aerial systems and streaming video and the intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance means and iraq and afghanistan that are driving that efficiencies as with commercial market. lockheed has tools used by our customers to increase that efficiency but i'd like to point and that in the federal law on

federal kind of pioneer in view of things it's not that's, because it's important to realize that a permit is a major consumer of commercial equipment and then use of the commercial systems both terrestrial and space so they have to balance that between commercial and federal lease. >> 20 seconds. >> them military is deploying spectrum access built into several systems going back to the question of utilization emphasizing the point regarding the pc as allocation proceeding. that spectrum was uncovered by 1500 my career paths which ultimately failed licensees received the auction understanding they could interfere and we're recommending building on that being able to utilize technology is available where they may not actually have to be relocated bud fisher the spectrum. >> we have to be inflexible in terms of the goal of flexible in terms of what the final, asia

looks like but it will involve substantial questions of increase efficiency and spectrum as well and we have to ensure that we encourage both to be maximized so that we do make ourselves as competitive as a nation as we can over our shoulders being too, three and four and a world as you said, steve it so that we maintain this so we thank you very much. >> thank you very much. the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. doyle is recognized for seven minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i just want to start by thanking all the witnesses but especially i want to thank dale hatfield for his years of dedicated public service and his assistants to the policymakers and helping people across the country to better understanding a technology behind this issue. never had a chance to tell him that personally and i want him to know that so thank you

mr. hatfield. mr. largent and mr. smith, you both talk a lot about mobile video broadcasting and i'm curious, do you think people want to watch a limited number of channels that have set schedule on a device about this big or do you think they want to watch their choice of programs when they want to watch them? into that consumer preference drive special decisions? >> well, i would say that from my personal experience the older i get the harder it is to watch television on hand said. [laughter] but we are serving closer probably 280 million festering -- customers in this country and probably this is a get the end of this year. and i would say that there probably is consumer uptake of that particular service as it becomes available in as is available now. >> mr. smith? >> congressman doyle, i don't believe they should be regarded as exclusive, i think we can do

both. i know young people are highly interested in mobile tv. device suspect many who don't have to wear these are as well. that said, i think it's very important for these new inventions like who coming along are using broadcast content, it won't be many years until your laptop will have a broadcast signal to. and so it's not either or. it is both. >> but it seems to me and i agree i think it is young people because i couldn't watch tv on this either, but it seems to me those same people were the ones who don't want a set sets -- set schedule. they want to watch the show when they watch their show. and then been case as we talk about where is the best place to allocate spectrum, it just -- i

just saw a note here -- i want to watch the steelers beat the seahawks in real time. [laughter] .. if people want to watch individual things, then the more

cellular rise to approach is more efficient. so i look at here your decision or our decision is what the balance should be, how the balance should be made, and of course on the broadcast side we probably have this additional public interest benefit the general broadcasting that may sway the decision. but i think from an engineering standpoint that's a fundamental question how much of it is individual choice and what time you want to watch it and how much of it you want to watch simultaneously. >> does anyone else want to china on that? i have one other question. mr. smith in a pittsburgh area roughly about 8% of the people in my region get their broadcast with rabbit ears over the air broadcasting. and i was just curious if you have any numbers on how many people -- 8%. yeah, 8%. eight. watch with rabbit ears.

how many people to read to you have any numbers on how many people watched hdtv with rabbit ears versus relying on standard def? >> i have heard the range 8% to 20% but i think it is a couple other factors that are important depending on your congressional district for example mr. barton's district may go as high as 40%, and over the air tends to be about people who are role, who are poor, who are elderly, who have also invested in the digital transmission. >> you think they have hdtv? >> i believe the figure of $25 billion, which is an estimate of what people have spent in the digital transmission i think many of them do now and they really like high-definition and they don't want to see it the great and they are beginning to tell you the multi casting so that they get a religious channel or weather channel, hispanic

channel, cory in channel -- cory in channel. this is the merkel made possible because we all did this and it's a tree exciting future i hate to see clouded by ill considered ideas that put broadband against broadcast. i do think in the fullness of time there will be technologies that will provide for both. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i have no more questions. i will yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. doyle. the gentleman from washington state is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. largent, we know americans are going to be looking at yourself and much more frequently and they are on an hourly basis. just wonder what suggestion you can give us on what things we can do here and in the sec to promote networks that are really going to be necessary. can you just give your general thoughts about that? >> number 1i would applaud what the fcc did in november by an

approaching fatah were sliding initiative. we have been fighting this battle for a long time giving local jurisdiction states the ability to object to the towers proposals but in a timely fashion. and that goes a long way helping this industry provide more service to this country. so i really applaud the fcc for their action on the top were sliding. the two bills we are looking at today are the beginning of the process or in the of the process. the spectrum inventory build looks at the possible specter now there, how it's being used and what spectrum can be identified for higher and better use perhaps and then your bill comes at the end of the process and says here's a more orderly fashion to move the current spectrum holders to the new

spectrum and do it in a more efficient and effective way and faster. so both of these bills are good bills and go a long way to improving the process of acquiring additional spectrum which the wireless industry is going to need in the years to come. >> i want to make sure i didn't miss any one -- light didn't hear any good or not so good constructive criticism of our bill and wanted to make sure i didn't miss any. does anyone have suggestions on the bill that he would suggest to improve the product? we are always going to look for suggestions. this might be the first hearing there is no constructive criticisms of this is the achievement. you have mentioned dropping the specter of the relocation fund to support modernizing federal systems and allow greater degree of insuring. can you give a sense when he would be suggestive of as far as cost and what type of approach? >> it's very difficult to know

the exact cost in fact i would assume probably first of all the agencies that would be proposing to modernize their system to free spectrum for sharing the would be second in, they would be first from the spectrum relocation fund of priority for those agencies that needed to migrate off so it could be cleared for licensing as we did with a good u.s., the fundamental purpose of the bill. but then secondarily there is now we have remaining funds and then i think they should come agencies should be able to apply to the technical panel you propose in the bill setting up which would then recommend to the omb which of those in a competitive basis which of those

would have the greatest impact in terms of freeing spectrum for the commercial sector or spectrum efficiency. it's a great benefit because it would make those agencies more effective with more modern communication while also freeing up spectrum. >> thank you very much, mr. inslee. i'm going to ask unanimous consent on behalf of the gentleman from nebraska to insert in the record a letter concerning the subject matter before us of the electronic warfare and information operations association. without objection that will be made part of the record. and the gentle lady from california is bono mac is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chair and would like to ask a question of dr. johnson. in your testimony you indicated future governor spectrum needs will be focused on high bandwidth uses such as video for

uav or heil to do surveillance aircraft. is that correct? >> yes, that is correct. >> can you provide an estimate of the hide and video capacity used by the uav and other surveillance aircraft currently provided by commercial satellite systems using spectrum of ten gigahertz? >> i can't provide that we can provide that after the hearing. >> thank you to read to you believe most of the future negative and what did you capacity for the uav also will use spectrum of of ten gigahertz? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> thank you. if i can get answers in writing after the hearing that would be great and at this point i would like to yield the balance of my time to my colleague if he is available. thank you. >> thank you very much. a question i have, and thank you for yielding it's about the deily and the delivery of spectrum and its impact on

delivering commercial systems. when you look back even back in 2006 when t-mobile paid a lot of money for .2 billion for spectrum we are four, five years down range now and we still don't have systems being delivered, and when we lay out the time lines for the delivery, and they are not met, so i look at this legislation before us and i'm interested in your opinions if i were to offer an amendment as mr. markey talks about giving encouragement what about it i would offer an amendment that has a penalty clause so that if a government department or agency does not deliver the relocation at the time line that specified whether it's classified or unclassified than that department or agency is to pay interest on the money relative to where the spectrum

is located. so you can figure out what the economic impact would be to get some of the dod says it is just too difficult to deliver the spectrum from mobile pensacola to jacksonville because we have our classified issues. a deal with it then. tell what they are. use it to could deliver on a particular date you could do with it. so if i were to offer such an amendment as an incentive because if we ask for these companies to put billions of dollars, or asking for an auction. we do the next auction, the government takes the money and we use the money yet are not delivering when we said we would. and so in the end, you know, mr. smith, you talked about public values. public values are based upon virtues. if you're going to have a deal you can have a deal without fidelity, and fidelity requires two people. and so, if government is not upholding its fidelity maybe we should have an encouragement walls called a penalty calls. what are your ideas, your

thoughts? mr. largent? >> well, i like your thinking going into this, but i would prefer -- and i am just thinking about this free-wheeling so i wasn't prepared for the question but as i think about it i think perhaps you could build incentives for the people that are moving off the spectrum to get off so that you give the spectrum relocation money you would give them, you know, some amount of money if they are off in a year and you give them something less than that amount if they are off in two years so you give them more money to relocate the faster they are able to relocate as opposed to the same amount of money whenever they relocate. >> we can incentivize and penalize, right? >> we like incentives. >> i understand. mr. smith? >> congressman, we don't really have a doll in a fight so to say, but having said that, i applaud the way you're thinking

because i think it would have the effect of incentivizing more interest in the spectrum options if they knew that there was a two-way street and they would be treated fairly. >> thank you. i would like to explore this idea with not only my colleagues but with you on how we can build this into this next piece of legislation. thank you. i yield back. >> might have to put a second-degree amendment on your amendment that would punish all members of congress to spend the spectrum money five times over. [laughter] i agree with you and wish that i think we will close this happy hearing. thank you. have a good holiday and thank you for being here. [inaudible conversations] president obama today outlined some of the mistakes that led to an attempted airline bombing on christmas day. the president spoke briefly from

a marine corps base in hawaii where he and his family are on vacation. >> hello, everybody. good morning. yesterday i updated the american people on the immediate steps we took, the increased screening and security of air travel to keep our country safe in the wake of the attempted terrorist attack on christmas day and i announced to refuse. the review of the terrorist watch list system and review of our air travel screening so we can find out what went wrong, fix it and prevent future attacks. those reviews began on sunday and are now under way. earlier today i issued former guidelines for those reviews and directed the preliminary findings be provided to the white house by this thursday. it is essential we diagnose the problems quickly and deal with them immediately.

the more comprehensive formal reviews and recommendations for improvement would be employed to be concluded in the weeks and i'm looking forward to working with congress and intelligence law enforcement and homeland security communities to take all necessary steps to protect the country. i want to speak to the american people again today because some of this information that surfaced the last 24 hours raises serious concern. it's been widely reported that the father of the suspect in the christmas incident or u.s. officials in africa about his son's views. it now appears that weeks ago this information was passed to a component of our intelligence community but was not effectively distributed so as to get the suspect's name on a no-fly list. there appears to be other deficiencies as well. even without this one report there were bits of information available within the intelligence community that could have and should have been pieced together.

we have achieved much since 9/11 in terms of collecting information that relates to terrorists and potential terrorist attacks but it's becoming clear the system that has been placed for years now has loss of the shepley of today to take full advantage of information we collect and the knowledge we have. had this critical information been shared it could have been compiled with other intelligence and a full and clear picture of the suspect would have emerged. the warning seidman's would have triggered red flags and the suspect would have never been allowed to board the plane for america. the professionalism of the men and women in our intelligence counterterrorism and law enforcement homeland security communities is extraordinary. they are some of the most hard-working most dedicated americans i've ever met and in pursuit of security here at home they risk their lives day in and day out in this country and around the world. few americans see their work but all americans are safer because of their success.

they have targeted and taken out violent extremists and disrupted plots and saved countless american lives. they are making real daily progress in addition to disrupt, dismantle and dee dee al qaeda and other extremist networks around the world and for this every american owes them a profound and lasting debt of gratitude. moreover as secretary napolitano has said once the suspect attempted to take down flight 253, after his attempt it is clear passengers and crew of homeland security systems and the aviation security took fifth all three factions but what is clear is also this: when our government has information on an extremist and the information is not shared and acted upon as it should have been so that this extremist boards a plane with dangerous explosives that could have cost nearly 300 lives a systemic failure has occurred and i consider that totally

unacceptable. the reviews i ordered will tell more. but what already is apparent is there was a mix of human and systemic failure that contributed to this potential catastrophic breach of security. we need to learn from this episode and act quickly to fix the flaws in the system because the securities at stake and lives are at stake. i fully understand even when every person charged with ensuring security does what they are trained to do, even one of the system works as intended there is still no 100% guarantee of success. if this should only compel us to work even harder, to be more innovative and relentless in our efforts. as president i will do everything in my power to support the men and women and intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security to make sure they have got the tools and resources they need to keep america safe but it's also my job to ensure our intelligence law enforcement and homeland security systems and the people in them are working effectively

and held accountable. i intend to fulfil that responsibility and insist on accountability at every level. that is the spirit guiding our reviews and to the attempted attack on christmas day. that is the spiritual guide all of our efforts in the days and years ahead thank you very much. >> what is your reaction about [inaudible]

now a discussion on how the environment will affect world affairs in 2010. the economist magazine hosts the discussion with industry insiders. it is part of the december 7th conference is about 40 minutes. [applause] >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. it is my distinguished panel takes the stage let me see what a pleasure it is to be with you this morning to discuss the very

small topics of the grand global challenges ahead we have beginning in 2010. this panel will describe everything you need to know about the future the world economy climate change, urbanization, global health threats and all the interrelated problems. we will leave it to the next panel to deal with the solutions of course. we have in very brief order because we have full biographies in your package to my immediate left we have gary lawrence from the consultant cos. we have faz from the american progress that in these days needs no introduction in this town. we have duane and amy davidson from the climate group. let me start by putting forward a thesis, and i welcome dissent on this but i would argue that we are entering a new age of

unprecedented global threats. you may say welcome to the party, paul, we've been there since 9/11. but in this new century i would argue the global threats we have the most focused on, the most urgent global concerns of course terrorism geopolitical threats and the financial crisis and response in the developing a new economic order are not the ones principally judged on with the perspective of 2050 or 2100. they are essential to do with these problems but in nature they are not unprecedented. terrorism has been with us as long as history books have been with us. and if you talk about financial crisis it goes hand-in-hand with capitalism. just need to look back at the tulip bubble centuries ago to know that. so these are not different in nature i would argue though they are essential to deal with. we are, however, confronted in this new century with several trends that do deposit a new

kind of challenge that might require new kinds of responses. perhaps new institutions or arrangements at the international level. perhaps the solutions will come from bottom-up or national governments or the classic magic of the market. we will find out from the panel what they think. but among them of course first point that and related system ecosystems challenges we will talk about in a moment as the world leaders including president obama are soon to be gathered in copenhagen for the u.n. summit. if we talk about global health in an age of increasing interconnectedness would it be the panamax that were in the midst of of course of the moment and h1n1 pandemic but also the threats that coming but more silently. the chronic diseases that a rise silently from a sick, fatter and older world and the commission

alleges that poses to the health systems and our economic systems. the third kind of challenge we put forward is urbanization. we are for the first time in human history a primarily urban species. cross the line perhaps last year and this is going to be a trend that continues aggressively over the next couple of decades on every forecast we are going to be predominantly urban species and most of the city's we will be living our names are names you do not know yet. we know shanghai, beijing, maybe a few other key cities in china but the other cities that have more than 1 million or 5 million my view there will be few people in this room if any that can name them not to mention the cities behind them in brazil, south africa or india. will they develop in a leapfrog manner that is to the greenest potential or will they repeat a lot of the failed policies of the past, approaches of the past? if so they would make the other challenges we face even more difficult. perhaps impossible to master.

to get together on would argue these are going to be the challenge is judged on as an age of prosperity comes upon us with china, india, the brits economies, rising up in one generation something bigger than anything we've seen in economic terms since the arrival of columbus and europeans and though the world. this is an extraordinary event in poverty alleviation and trade and opportunity for all of us but if it becomes a force in factor making all these other sustainable challenges all the more difficult to tackle. it might require new approaches, new solutions. to help us think about this let me turn first to amy. climate is an area of your expertise. do you think that international approaches, global governance, sometimes it is called, or perhaps on display in full flower copenhagen offers the best chance for tackling a problem like climate and related ecosystems not to just get caught in one aspect of it. >> absolutely. i think international agreement

-- >> can we hear her in the back row? if you can hear her, stand up. >> not that i can see you. [laughter] i think an international agreement is essential. we need this to give the rules to be able to price carvin owls well as to understand what the risk and return is for business because the business is going to be unable to unleash this entire potential for a new low carbon economy, so it is absolutely critical that we get this global deal with the we get it in copenhagen right now that is a little on certain at the moment but i think we are going to have a path forward to get a global deal in 2010 and i do think it's the best way forward in order to solve this problem. >> do you think it will happen? president obama has announced he's going when all the other leaders are going instead of doing lightning strike at a time it would have been largely irrelevant. what does this mean for the meeting to spend a second more on copenhagen? >> it will be seen the past couple of weeks certainly increased expectations we are

going to get out of copenhagen, and i think what obama has done recently by giving, standing up provisional target for the united states by changing his arrival late now toward the end of the session which is more important because that is when all the other global leaders will be there and also by offering some financial increase financial commitment to help sort of developing countries under the navigation are critical. those are key factors that need to get done so again have a global deal that's going to have more sense. >> faz, let me turn to you. what do you think about the prospects for a global approach for dealing with this most global problem? it is a very attractive point. there is hardly a problem that is as global as climate change. the atmosphere doesn't give a whether the greenhouse emissions come from boston, or bolivia. so surely we need a human approach, a global approach, global carvin price and it sounds like conceptually it sounds right. where is the reality?

>> i'm optimistic. i want to be optimistic but let's be realistic as well. we are in an age with president obama now heralding the united states into a new position of leadership where i think we are now in the debate of the politics of what is possible versus the politics of what is necessary and those of us in this room are obviously thinking very much about what is necessary and giving less to what's possible but that is of course the world that president obama, congress and the nations have to delve in and if you are looking at the intersection of the two, the politics of what is possible and politics of what's necessary there are too worrying trends i see and one is i think the mentality of people who are predisposed evolutionary disposed to thinking near-term security threats and that is physical harm, security, terrorism, you mentioned it and it's hard i think to get people's conception, mentality wrapped around the fact that we are dealing with trends that are

50, 100 years in the making and we are sitting in boiling water watching it leal a around and trying to get people's attention. so there is a mentality problem and the other writing is whose powerful in this equation? if we are trying to merge politics to what is necessary it really is a big factor to look at who is controlling the process. my concern is a lot of people with wealth, a lot of people with resources are the ones who have an organ and control both domestically and globally. so if you look at coal -- degette was always that big was and it? >> but i think now -- >> -- 10% of people had the right to vote. >> the difference however is ideologically the united states is in the position now to want to confront the challenges from the perspective of wanting to do the greatest good of course on a progressive so i have all of things to say there negative but i don't want to give that up the

bush administration to really are in an era where the united states is willing and wants to solve the problems. obviously a lot of the money that is governing domestic politics but also on the global stage where hopefully looking at 10 billion-dollar commitments for climate funding to help poor nations with adaptation mitigation of the effective climate change. $10 million small amount. we can't get a global power a plea that is what will come out of copenhagen. >> the 10 billion-dollar fund specific concrete proposal as you said the president supported but as we look at the skill of the energy enterprise it is a 2 trillion-dollar plus a year industry at least. it is the biggest industry on earth by far on revenue terms never mind asset terms. it is a drop in the bucket. so i would urge you what we really need to do is change the fundamental incentives facing investors and facing individuals including the behavior of all of us in this room so that we make different choices. the money is there is just we

are directing the resources now towards not green sources of energy or unsustainable sources. how does one shift the balance of incentives? >> let me turn to garrey. in an earlier chat we are talking about if climate science or to have a cloud, and a freezing a little bit here perhaps because of the climate e-mails making their rounds now but are there no regrets policies that would make sense to do in a world even if climate were not the only objective for some people were not on board with singing it should be the reason to do things and from your perspective in the real world you are a profit-making company tell what do we do any way? >> i will give a simple question i asked with every client. how much sea level rise sharply plan for as i am building this coastal facility? in the u.s. 52% of the u.s. gdp

is in coastal zones that would be affected by one meter rise in sea level. so what do we tell them? given that good science by its very nature has to have doubt built into it once you move into certainty you are not dealing with science and the public is very confused because they want an answer when an answer is impossible, probabilities are only there. so what we work with in our clients is getting them to recognize they have to function under a thing called the precautionary principle. at what point is there enough information to make it cost-effective for them to of act in a risk management. we seldom use the word sustainability any more because we think sustainability is actually a decision making from

work that is the most robust of all possible risk management tools. so, what is the risk management approach to these issues of climate and ancillary issues that may be more important? >> have you actually seen the people making investments? sometimes it is said real-estate groups for example are among the least progressive groups when it comes to dealing with sustainably issues and in new york city we've just seen this. they managed to be to back a proposal by mayor bloomberg for retrofitting buildings to become green and they are very powerful lobby and control lots of the actual physical space. and so here we have a very powerful mayor apparently pushing an agenda of sustainability who is losing to this hartness industry. so how do you persuade? >> around the world we are seeing property owners having to make their buildings more dream because they are losing competitive advantage in the

marketplace because the prime tenants want to be in a building that has both qualities of health associated with a green building as well as the cache because they don't know their customers expect of them so i think the realtors as an ex planning director i will say the realtors were one of my beings of existence. but the fact is the customers are now telling the developers it doesn't matter whether you think it is a good idea or not. we are not going to lease and we are also saying history, and this is in europe as well as the u.s. and actually in china as well that when you have a vacancy buildings that are green and lease back up again much more rapidly than buildings that are not. >> this is an interesting idea that we are seeing with green buildings perhaps even local pollution reasons that this they

often tend to use paint that don't have compounds that children tend to like buildings that don't have these nasty chemicals. you may find reasons to do a win-win on climate. in that vein what may turn to duane. you spent time thinking about development issues. one of the relatively ignored aspects of climate in mauney view is between climate and poverty. there are 1.6 billion or so people on earth who have no access to the modern energy, no electricity clean tools, nothing of the sort familiar with. mostly sub-saharan africa, parts of latin america caribbean and here it's mostly women and girls who walk miles a day to fetch calydon or prop residue, burn it in the makeshift cookstoves that these thoughts too horrible indoor pollution. it is a tragedy. is there any opportunity at all to put forward an agenda on clean energy that might be consistent with climate tackling

change that could actually solve this major problem for a third of humanity, a quarter third of humanity? >> there's a lot of potential for the win-win solutions coming out of climate change. climate change is probably the single largest threat to poverty reduction and honduras on the horizon right now, so that's -- >> that is a big claim he made. why? >> the projections on the livelihood of the people as well as the risks climate change poses and the risk of whether, floods, droughts put it almost bigger than anything you can identify in war and conflicts are you are likely to get climate refugees for example. >> huge dislocations are likely or projected. a lot is on known but we do know that it's the orders of magnitude have changed our big. food for example agricultural productivity has a very drastic projections where people rely on

the weather and the weather is going to become a regular or marble tile. looking at billions of people whose food supply is at risk. on the other hand given that there is a big policy debate there's a lot of opportunity to reduce through relatively cheap investments for the poorest people, and in that way because the climate -- the policy response of climate change is likely to generate large new revenue streams in the economy it is possible to envision ways in which poor people might actually benefit from the climate regime's and that is what we've been trying to focus energy first of all in preventing the problem which is to mitigate climate change and get a good greenhouse gas regime in place and secondly to prepare for the change we know will happen and make investments to make people more resilient. >> so adaptation. it's one of the key things of copenhagen thinking about how to adapt to the warming world and even those who might be skeptical about forming my point

is liberia or enough to court -- north dakota. the poorest people on earth are those who are most vulnerable both because they tend to live in parts of the with marble tile whether or marginal subsistence farming that they are clinging as it is but a debate could attend to have societies with leased capacity technological and so on to adapt so surely getting your point is well taken. but if we switch as you say to looking from the perspective that and it's on a view as it were what are the bottom-up issues? you talked about big funds, adaptation money. i'm sure there will be people running off with the money and lots of scandals as we've seen with other mechanisms and kyoto. it will be an imperfect and messy process. how do we counterbalance with a reality check from the bottom-up from markets and entrepreneurs and maybe from technology solutions? faiz i know you've for spend time thinking about the role of technology in governments and how it might in power whether it

be blogs and social networks. how do you see perhaps from that perspective why at the same time they are working on international institutions and money. how do you change behavior including on the ground in developing countries with falcon technology or networks play? >> at the center for american project we have a staff of 15 people blogging all day. and operating for 15 years we are changing the course of politics by altering the balance of power in politics with new information. and those who are in positions of great wealth, concentration wealth going back to my earlier seem, they are constantly i think the meaning and putting down statistics with which they disagree so you've seen the trashing of the ipcc, the intergovernmental panel on climate change when the budget comes off with a port they don't like the trash it. national academy of sciences, whenever it might be whoever of

the independent experts are being trashed when there is a need i think to put facts on the table that we can agree on. one of the things i have been about is in the current course of politics and way i see it going in the future we can't come to an agreement on a basic set of facts. the political discourse now is that you don't disagree with approaches and solutions. you disagree with fundamental facts. we can't even agree with our climate change is occurring, the science behind it, the fact that human behavior is leading the climate change. we've james inhofe, senator inhofe leading a congregational there, the speaker of the denmark's parliament saying time and change isn't a real threat is dangerous to talk about and even a global health you have the former president of south africa seeking hiv doesn't cause aids and now we are living into a new era where jacob sola is confronting the problem some of the concern's -- >> so are you suggesting an alternative? >> one of the concerns i see -- >> here is the microphone. >> going to the earlier point

that is the role i think of people in the blogosphere that are activists. the potential and opportunities from the bottom-up communications to alter the balance of power is greater than it's ever been, and i think to take advantage of those tools to give poor nations a voice, to let -- for people to understand what is going on, to understand what is going on with the effect of climate change next year, that is the role i think of these new forms of communication because we are not going to get it from the coal energy giants or from the people who have the concentration on the national society because they stand to lose. >> to pick up on that idea, you talked about how the voices of the disempowered can perhaps keep the eletes honest in a sense. if only we could get their act together they could do it. what about actually keeping little people honest, that is individual, responsibility, changing behavior. there is a popular school of thought now known as knowledge,

big brothers, soft coley brother that encourages you to do the right things. is there a more and arctic may be a market friendly approach that comes from the bottom-up that might lead people to put on the cheese and switch out there inefficient lives for more efficient ones? what works from what you've seen that might actually change behavior that might come from this school of thought of innovation, technology and rather than having a little bit more of a traditional big brother tells you regulate and ban behavior? >> change in behavior in my view i think to spur activism they want to know that they are being misled. they are being lied to and there's a fundamental truth being buried. that people are trying to cover up and i think that there is so many of those and to get people's attention to this is uncovering of the golden nugget's people feel like is being held from them that the potential changing human behavior is being thwarted because of powerful actors.

that idea is what we've been concerned about domestic and but also now moving into the politics is what we are concerned about that is preventing middle east peace from preventing negotiations with iran, with getting more empowerment for women, those are the types of powerful forces covering up, a lawyer, deceiving and activists learn about those things it moves them and galvanizes them. >> i'm going to turn to amy and samet followed by gary duces upon your thoughts but i want to get lurched to the audience and going to turn to your questions just after that supplies, collect your thoughts and when i turn to questions after the comments, please make your self known with animated waving of the arms or whistles, catcalls, whenever you like. >> i don't think we have the time to rely on the consumer behavior change. it's absolutely important. i can all of us are doing that but given the time scale of climate change it's the business

and government that needs to leave. business is doing that already. we are missing here that this is an economic opportunity. an economic problem first and foremost because the longer we wait, the more this is going to cost but it's a more economic opportunity. >> is that true? the longer we agreed there will be a richer world with better technology? assuming we make the investments so that we have scaled up renewable energy or carvin capture, whatever the solutions might be? it is also obvious that acting now, stopping the world and solving the problem as quickly as you can is necessarily the only way to think about the problem is and it? >> the longer we wait, the mission's build up its way to be harder to bring them down, and actually the 70% of the emission reductions that are needed by 2020 we have the technology to do it is just three things come increasing energy efficiency, increasing use of low carbon energy and that is renewable as well as nuclear and it's basically stopping deforestation. so we now know how to do that and what the policies are.

we can do a renewable energy standard, we can put building codes in place, we can do vehicle efficiency standards compliance codes. and going back to your earlier point, china, you know, is not necessarily doing this just for climate change. they have 15% renewable target for 2020. they're doing it for energy security reasons as well as energy diversification. they have to do it and are now taking the lead in solar and wind and electric vehicles because they see this as a technological advantage and i would hate to see the u.s. squander this opportunity for the economic growth we can do as well as job growth. >> is this a great green business opportunity, is that your sins of this? >> there's a lot of money to be made. there's also a lot of money made at the last part in treating -- carvin trading. it wasn't made by the parties to the exchange. it is and in perfect model. and just a couple of points that have come up.

i have had a number of really amazing professional disasters in my life, and they all were rooted in the same problem and that was me trying to convince people they ought to care about something different than they were caring about when they walked in the door. i don't see us making any progress in most of the world making people cared about climate change. so what we do with our clients both public and private is ask them what keeps them awake at night and what is the most climate responsible way to address and we make much more progress doing that than hammering over the head about mitigation and adaptation. >> give the people with the one just get them to do it in a better way. >> with that thought and incite learned from the school of hard knocks let me turn to the audience. forgive me the bright lights are in my eyes so i maim somebody.

do we have any questions? i know we have some microphones. let me see. all right. while you collect your thoughts -- there is a gentleman there. wheat for the microphone and i will ask if you can identify yourself and make it a short and sweet question rather than gasbag comment. that is the prerogative of the trip. [laughter] >> my name is kafeel towns actually from north dakota and yeah, it's cold but it's not too bad. kind of looking forward to the climate change a little bit. but my question, what we are looking for -- mentioned the government is going to be looking to kind of established a change in infrastructure, and what changes do you think we are going to be able to do, like before impression and going for roads and dams and everything like that but with a focus on green, how is the government going to be able to provide something that will help employment as well as infrastructure within the united states? >> okay. i'd see that you are nodding your head. can you address the gentleman's

christian? it sounds like a link between the green jobs infrastructure. maybe you can talk about green stimulus as well. >> quickly the infrastructure side, this, going back to decide the population is moving into the city's. i think what we will see is there's going to deal with i.t. and communications work along the value chain for design and infrastructure within the built environment. and i think that is where there is going to be a lot of pickup coming in the future. and for rick symbol if you can't just work on here in new york city they have an el eda pilot program that the city of new york. just to show demonstrates led work, there are cost savings and other benefits you can get such as decreasing traffic accidents etc. and that is the kind of thing once you can demonstrate with the government we can come up with policy necessary to drive investments we can then scale that kind of technology for would up the pace of change we need. >> the american recovery and

reinvestment act known as a stimulus that was passed and signed by president obama included $80 billion new energy technologies, which i think focus is on whether as asian, energy efficiency, some of the building projects eni was talking about also new battery technology and of course building of the smart great. so those are what we call a green collar jobs where you get people out there who were formerly blue-collar workers, construction, some of the things amy also talked about where you can see in planet over the next year building up dramatically in these new technologies. >> one note on that i was on a stage recently interviewing carol on this topic. she is of course the green azar inside of the obama administration and one thing she did acknowledge was that green stimulus will hopefully be a green and create these jobs but

may be less stimulating than one might think thus far that the nature of some of these investments will take time to play out so it is actually not the boss for this year but perhaps next year or the next year and have you will see more of this money coming into concrete jobs and projects and to put it in perspective, china is putting in perhaps ten times as much in real terms specifically toward green stimulus, not whether the money is spent wisely or whether it will crowd out private investment or whether there will be a cliff for example in eckert coming year and a half, what comes next when the green stellas runs out but you still have a wind belt that isn't quite economic without the funds come so there are some difficult challenges that the history of energy subsidies and investment say you need to work out but there is no question right now that this kind of investment from a government stimulus around the world is a huge part of infrastructure the question you asked according to the agency because of the financial crisis the collapse of the

credit markets investment in a renewable energy dropped 20% this year in 2009 but it would have been a 30% drop had government not had big stimulus packages, just to give you a sense of perspective. >> most of the stimulus was counterproductive to the discussion of climate because one of the conditions for all of the infrastructure is the plans had to be completed in the door because you had a two-year window to roll them out, so houston, one of the great examples in the world failed urban policy, their stimulus money started construction with her third rode around houston to open up even more sprawl. so there was a portion that tried to do good but because there hasn't been a policy in the u.s., the saying that there has to be a relationship between an infrastructure and agree now comes we were not prepared.

>> mauney -- i know when you're talking about when i heard the projects are schoeppel ready i always ask what are you shoveling. [laughter] let's have a question from the front row. identify yourself, sir. >> robert with international law investors. let me put this succinctly. the most optimistic forecast that i see no matter what we do in terms of conservation, energy efficiency etc. all efforts eventually are overwhelmed and i mean overwhelmed by simple population growth. forecasts, so you know, we can all and we should try to do everything we can but what do each of you have to say about the absence of population control anything that's going on now in terms of agreement. >> excellent and direct question. i'm going to put it first hour people the problem? >> people are the problem and

solution. simple as that. the population is far too simple. people consume in very different ways around the world. the energy and pollution produced by a single american is the equivalent of a single 13 bangladeshis. so population depends where they are and what they are consuming. we have to look at ourselves if we are going to talk about population and our own consumption which is much bigger impact globally on the environment than the populations of several billions of people in this world. so it is true we want to empower people to control the fertility to make choices about their families and in general when they have access and ability they do. but we need to see people as a resource, as poor people in particular as people to in power and support not as the problem. >> one counter intuitive thing i've learned from scientists i'm assuming true scientists have told me this that smaller numbers of families correspond with higher life expectancy

therefore you have lower birthrates and you wouldn't expect that if you are living longer you would have smaller families, but it's because people make the decisions about how large families would be based on whether they have confidence their children are going to survive so on the developing world's the members of the families actually decrease as the life expectancy goes up and the other part going is empowerment of women and in afghanistan 13% of women over the age -- 13% over the age of 15 are in a letter it and getting them power to make both girls educated but also women in power to make decisions about family decisions is going to be held fully a solution but not with the solution perhaps. >> i would have gone to that if we look at population forecasts over the last 30 years back when we had the limits of growth school of thinkers are giving that there was for example the population bomb, a popular book by stanford, fundamentally they

identified a problem but as often happens when one looks at st. line projections and says the deadline is going to keep going you keep finding that is not what actually works. in real life we have a dynamic dance between problems, scarcity, substitution, price signals, policy response and ultimately solutions. and what we have actually seen as far from a population bomb though the problem aggravates the sustainability concerns we talked about every forecast from demographers, the u.n. or independent assessments suggest we have moderated population growth that all the forecasts were revised downward in part because the empowerment of google's, economic opportunities as well as improvement of standards. the bundle of things done in response to those warnings have helped to mitigate that and donner would say as we live in a world of globalization and googleization we now have in power 6 billion people to be innovators and waiting to come up with solutions whereas before it was much more elite process in the past.

the more people can apply the energies to solving these problems and we face it actually encourages me. people can be the solution rather than the problem. >> i think the population problem is the taboo of talking about population. i think back when i was the co-author of president clinton's council on sustainable development report, sustainable communities chapter there was a section about population that went vice president gore was all for that conversation. it went to the president's desk and got rich right out and sent back because it was just politically impossible to talk about population. it is an issue. it's got positive and negative sides. we seem to be much more comfortable when talking about population when it is population growth in the developing world. population growth in the developing world is something we don't want to talk about because we are all consumers.

>> by 2015 we are expected to have 9 billion people and to support 9 billion people the projection is to double food supply. that is a big challenge, but to recognize some people are not consuming enough right now. even now we have a billion people who don't get enough food to eat so it isn't a problem in the future to deal with equity and comfort. we have a convergence of consumption. the people of the bottom need to increase consumption and at the top figure out ways of reducing consumption without reducing standard of living. >> let's turn to a gentleman patiently waiting. please identify yourself. >> i have responsibility for a private foundation. i am curious, some would characterize the u.s. position on climate change and historical posture as not as globally predatory as our partners in other countries might like. what is the value proposition i would like to hear from panelists the value proposition for the american electric to be

full participant in global climate change solutions going forward. >> amy? speaking as an american voter was a net for me -- what is and for me? >> from a business point of view where my mind comes from you want the certainty because we are in the middle of the road here. you see a little bit with health care, too. business needs to know the direction. they want to move forward if you give them -- if we cap emissions and create price signal then you have certainty and they know what they can do. they can invest money into assets that are long term without this concern that maybe they will end up being stranded assets than they can start creating jobs. so, we have as americans we have a huge cake for this. it's absolutely critical. we all have a generational issue is whether it is kids or grandkids so it matters to them we get that right in the most flexible mechanism as possible.

>> faiz, you run the progress of blogs and perhaps for audience is selected to think positively about action. with the political problem remains, doesn't it that we are asking politicians to act on behalf of voters who in some pieces haven't even been born yet or may never vote in this country. how do you surmount that problem? >> fortunately the political process is finally moving, and i think the greatest intersection where people need to express their voice is going to be the next year in the samet de date where i think we could either see collapse or success and a literally hinges on whether the senate is going to take action and we have got some powerful actors who are trying to stop that both inside and outside and i am urging people to get involved at that juncture. we know where the battleground is and who the battleground senators are and we need to start working. actually this is a geographic issue quite honestly. the western states, some states that stand to benefit our

starting to change their mind. some of the senators are coming around but in the places of the midwest and west virginia the need a little bit of convincing and i think their needs to be more valises heard around the country on this issue. >> a quick follow-up? >> i work a lot with the chinese academy of sciences. the street for would say we are using your debt to invest in creating a green technology and service market place that will run the world and the longer the u.s. for dressel we at this question is or isn't it, they are getting huge competitive advantage and they will never catch up. >> there is one more question i want to take before turning. there's a gentleman here middle row, blue tie. but before i turn to the panel for your predictions for next year as we approach our closing of the panel again please idti